Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 02.09.2010 <Дело Сергей Тимофеев (Sergey Timofeyev) против России» [англ.]

ings is to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and that of the authorities before which the case was brought (see {Pelissier} and Sassi v. France [GC], No. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II, § 67, and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], No. 49017/99, § 45, ECHR 2004-XI).
88. The Court is disinclined to share the Government's view that the criminal case involving the applicant was particularly complex. The charges against the applicant concerned a single event and nothing in the materials at the Court's disposal suggests that the case file was voluminous. The mere fact that on 1 July 1997 the applicant was acquitted at the first level of jurisdiction could not complicate the proceedings to an extent which would justify their dilatory nature. The Court thus considers that it was not the complexity of the case which accounted for the length of the proceedings.
89. The Court, however, points out that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were on several occasions suspended because of his illness (see paragraphs 32, 38, 41 and 43 above). The aggregate period of such suspensions exceeded four months. Furthermore, numerous hearings were postponed because of the applicant's medical condition (see paragraphs 13, 15, 24 and 53 - 55 above). The overall length of these delays amounted to some nine months. The Court considers that the personal nature of the accusations against the applicant necessitated his presence in the court-room so that he could defend himself properly and the interests of justice be respected and accepts that the delays caused by the applicant's state of health cannot be said to be attributable to the State.
90. As regards the conduct of the authorities, the Court reiterates that only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of a failure to comply with the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 § 1 (see Des Fours Walderode v. the Czech Republic (dec.), No. 40057/98, 4 March 2003). It points out that in the course of the domestic proceedings there were substantial periods of inactivity for which the Government have not submitted any satisfactory explanation and which are attributable to the State. It is not clear whether any proceedings were pending between 15 January and 6 August 1998 (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above). Even considering that the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia on 5 May 1998, the Court points out that the Government have put forward no explanation for an apparent lack of activity during a three-month period between the ratification date and the date of the supervisory review.
91. However, the Court points out that the most significant delay was caused by the suspension of the proceedings on 2 July 1999 until 4 January 2002. It takes note of the Government's submission that that suspension was required because it was impossible to examine the case in the absence of the applicant's co-accused. The applicant did not object to the decision on suspension; moreover, on 14 March 2002 the applicant's counsel requested to suspend the proceedings for the second time pending the search for Mr P. (see paragraph 25 above). The Court thus cannot conclude that the period of inactivity between 2 July 1999 and 24 January 2002 was attributable to the State.
92. The Court also observes that, save for the periods when the proceedings were suspended, hearings were scheduled at regular intervals and the parties' requests were promptly examined.
93. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that there were no excessively lengthy periods of inactivity attributable to the State and thus Court finds that the "reasonable time" requirement has been complied with.
94. There has ac

> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9